Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek (1979 pinball)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (NAC) RMHED (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Star Trek (1979 pinball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Has been a stub for over a year now, I don't see how it could ever be more than a stub. More importantly I see no reason why this topic is notable enough for an article. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We don't delete articles just for being stubs. Sam Blab 19:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom also indicates lack of notability, which is a valid reason for deletion, so WP:SK does not apply. MuZemike (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies. Sam Blab 00:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom also indicates lack of notability, which is a valid reason for deletion, so WP:SK does not apply. MuZemike (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see 10k hits for "star trek pinball", so sources exist. Being a stub isn't a reason to delete. See WP:NOEFFORT. Besides, we have no WP:DEADLINE. Your other argument "I don't see how" kind of answer itself, as the problem is a lack of imagination. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing me to WP:NOEFFORT, but I'd like to remind you of WP:GOOGLEHITS. So we still don't know about this subject's notability. Maybe it is notable, and that's fine, at least you took the time to actually read my reason for proposed deletion. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that ghits are never a reason to keep. I meant to use this only as it DOES say that there is plenty of chatter about the subject matter and the possibility of sources is very real. Did you try to source the article before you went to AFD? Some people don't, but many of us think it is required by good faith. From my experience, when a topic gets a few thousand or more ghits, it usually will have a source or two. It is better to find that source and put it in the article (some say it is an editors duty). If not, then hey, you have not just claimed it isn't notable, you can say "i found 3000 ghits but none that pass WP:RS" which only strenthens your argument, and makes good faith liking people really, really happy. Then if you are wrong, well, it happens, but at least you made a good faith effort and are using AFD as it should be, a last resort. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing me to WP:NOEFFORT, but I'd like to remind you of WP:GOOGLEHITS. So we still don't know about this subject's notability. Maybe it is notable, and that's fine, at least you took the time to actually read my reason for proposed deletion. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. LinguistAtLarge 01:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For the record, Sam has no reason to apologise - the rationale that the article will never expand beyond stub status is not a valid point to raise when arguing for deletion -- and, in any event, it is clearly an opinion. Dennis Brown's points are valid, so there is no sense in my repeating them -- I will just give him credit for getting here first and stating it so succinctly. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This looks like a Snowball Keep, but you guys should work on not being smugly insulting to people who are new around here. I didn't realize that having no content (except the fact that it existed) was not a valid reason for deletion. I was unaware of that rule, and disagree with it strongly but I'm not in charge around here. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only insults in regards to this discussion have come form you. SashaNein (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This looks like a Snowball Keep, but you guys should work on not being smugly insulting to people who are new around here. I didn't realize that having no content (except the fact that it existed) was not a valid reason for deletion. I was unaware of that rule, and disagree with it strongly but I'm not in charge around here. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's no deadline on improving stubs. Machine was created by Bally and was the first Star Trek pinball machine. SashaNein (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If the production number for the machine is correct that alone would guarantee its notability, not that many pinball machines topped 15k units, being based on the Star Trek property and being made by one of the biggest names in pinball doesn't hurt either. Sure the article needs work (a picture would help out a lot) but being unfinished is no reason to delete it. The Tower of Pisa took 177 years to finish and had three difference stages of construction, what a loss that would have been if someone said "this is taking to long, tear it down." Lando242 (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.